Jurisdiction assessment

This dispute concerns the installation of fibre. The fibre was installed on a fence in 2018 under the direction of a previous owner of the home. The property has more recently been purchased by the Customer in this dispute, and he now wishes the fibre to be relocated off the fence at the Wholesale provider’s cost.

The following exclusion is relevant:

12. which are raised more than three (3) years following the date the Customer reasonably became aware of such matter.

While the work was completed eight years ago, the customer only became aware of the issue when he purchased the property. He is currently in contact with the Wholesale provider to discuss the cost implications of relocating the fibre.

Therefore, this matter is suitable for mediation and adjudication, where the practitioner can consider whether the Wholesale provider has breached any relevant code.

Dispute outcome

  1. TDR’s final determination is that the customer’s complaint is not upheld.

Dispute

  1. This dispute arose following the Customer's request for the relocation of fibre infrastructure situated on his property.
  2. The Customer seeks relocation of the infrastructure and says he should not be responsible for the associated costs. He considers that the original installation did not comply with the applicable installation standards and requirements.

Positions of the respective parties

Customer’s position
  1. The Customer lodged a request with the Wholesale provider for the relocation of the fibre cable that was installed in 2018. 
  2. The Customer says the fibre infrastructure presently located on his property was installed before he purchased the property and that the installation does not comply with the applicable standards and requirements. 
  3. He has requested that the infrastructure be relocated but says the Wholesale provider has declined to undertake that work without charge, and has advised him that relocation would need to occur at his cost.
  4. The Customer's primary concern is that there is insufficient evidence available to demonstrate that the original installation was planned, authorised, and carried out in accordance with the applicable requirements. 
  5. The Customer notes that the Wholesale provider no longer holds the original installation design documentation and says there is no available evidence showing the installation route, alternative options considered, or any approval or sign-off relating to the installation methodology.
  6. The Customer submits that, in the absence of such records, it is not possible to verify whether the installation was planned, authorised, and undertaken in accordance with the applicable requirements, including whether informed agreement was obtained in relation to the installation route and its long-term implications. 
  7. He says the Wholesale provider should not be entitled to assume the installation was compliant where it is unable to produce evidence demonstrating this.
  8. The Customer further submits that the Wholesale provider's reliance on legislative provisions relating to existing telecommunications infrastructure does not address his concerns regarding whether the original installation location and method were appropriate, reasonable, or undertaken in a manner that minimised impact on the property.
  9. The Customer says the current installation is inconsistent with what would reasonably be regarded as a low-impact installation. In particular, he says the cable has been installed along the base of a fence line, creating practical constraints on the use and maintenance of the property. 
  10. He states that the installation interferes with activities such as vegetation management, painting, repairs, and other future works and creates ongoing concerns about inadvertently damaging the cable while undertaking routine maintenance.
  11. While the Customer acknowledges the Wholesale provider's right to maintain fibre infrastructure, he does not accept that this removes responsibility where, in his view, the installation was not undertaken in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements.
  12. The Customer seeks relocation of the infrastructure and says he should not be responsible for the total costs associated with that work.
Wholesale provider’s position
  1. The Wholesale provider says the fibre connection at the property was installed in 2018 following a request made through a Retail service provider by the owner or occupier of the property at that time. 
  2. It says the installation location and methodology were agreed on site and that the network was installed using a surface-mounted fibre lead-in methodology that was an approved installation option available at the time.
  3. The Wholesale provider notes that it received no complaints, fault reports, or concerns regarding the installation between 2018 and 2026. It says it first became aware of the Customer's concerns when he contacted it seeking relocation of the network infrastructure.
  4. The Wholesale provider says the matter was reviewed by its Workmanship Specialists and relevant operational personnel. Having considered the information provided, including photographs of the installation and the property's service history, it concluded there was no evidence of defective workmanship, non-standard installation practices, network faults, or damage attributable to the location of the cable.
  5. On that basis, the Wholesale provider determined that the matter did not concern workmanship or remediation of a network defect. Rather, it regarded the Customer's request as one for relocation of existing network infrastructure and advised that such work could be undertaken as a chargeable network relocation service.
  6. In relation to the Customer's request for historical installation records, the Wholesale provider says it no longer retains the original design documentation due to the passage of time. It also says that, as the Customer was not the original service applicant, it is unable to disclose information relating to the original installation request. The Wholesale provider's position is that the absence of those records does not affect the validity or ongoing status of the installation.
  7. The Wholesale provider states that the installation was completed in accordance with the regulatory and contractual framework applying at the time, including approved fibre lead-in methodologies. It says the methodology utilised at this property was an expressly permitted low-impact installation option available under the applicable operational requirements.
  8. The Wholesale provider further relies on sections 148(1) and 155(1) of the Telecommunications Act 2001. It says those provisions recognise and protect existing network infrastructure that has been lawfully installed and support its position that the infrastructure remain in its current location.
  9. Accordingly, the Wholesale provider maintains that the existing installation remains compliant and that any request to relocate or modify the infrastructure is properly treated as a customer-initiated network relocation, with the associated costs being the responsibility of the Customer.

Issue to be determined

  1. Whether, for the purposes of clause 10.2.6 of the TCF Customer Care Code, the Wholesale provider installed the fibre service in accordance with the service standards and installation requirements applicable at the time.

Proposed determination

  1. In making this determination I have considered the information provided by the Customer and the Wholesale provider and 
  • Fairness in all the circumstances;
  • Any relevant legal requirements, in particular, the End User Terms;
  • The Code [TCF Customer Care Code] and its service standards, including position statements; and
  • Any other relevant telecommunications Code.
  1. Having communicated with both parties on multiple occasions via email and telephone between 29 May and 13 June 2026, I am satisfied that there is no settlement of the dispute.  Therefore, I make the following determination:

Reasons for the decision

Whether, for the purposes of clause 10.2.6 of the Code, the Wholesale provider installed the fibre service in accordance with the service standards and installation requirements applicable at the time.

  1. Clause 10.2.6 of the Code requires Wholesale providers to provide services in accordance with the service standards applicable to those services. In this case, the Customer's concerns relate to whether the fibre installation was undertaken in accordance with the standards and requirements applying at the time of installation.
  2. I have considered the Customer's concerns regarding the location of the fibre infrastructure and the practical limitations he describes arising from its current position.
  3. I accept that the current location of the cable gives rise to practical constraints in relation to the use, maintenance, and management of the area in question. I also accept that those constraints give rise to genuine practical challenges for the Customer.
  4. However, the existence of practical inconvenience or restrictions arising from network infrastructure does not, of itself, establish that the installation was undertaken improperly or in a manner inconsistent with the applicable standards and requirements.
  5. The issue for determination is not whether the current location is the Customer's preferred outcome, but whether the available evidence establishes that the installation failed to comply with the standards applying at the time it was completed.
  6. The Customer places particular reliance on the absence of historical design documentation and records relating to the original installation. While I acknowledge those concerns, I am not persuaded that the absence of records, particularly given the passage of time since the installation occurred, is sufficient to establish that the installation was undertaken other than in accordance with the applicable requirements.
  7. I have also considered the Customer's concerns regarding agreement to the installation route and methodology. However, the evidence before me does not establish that the installation occurred without the authority required at the time, nor does it demonstrate that the methodology utilised fell outside the installation options available under the applicable operational and regulatory framework.
  8. The Wholesale provider, for its part, has identified the installation methodology relied upon, explained the basis upon which that methodology was available for use at the time, referred to the legislative and contractual framework governing existing network infrastructure.
  9. Further, the Wholesale provider notes the absence of any reported faults, workmanship concerns, or complaints relating to the installation over an extended period following completion of the work.
  10. Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the fibre installation was undertaken in a manner inconsistent with the service standards and installation requirements applicable at the time.
  11. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the available evidence supports a finding that the installation was undertaken other than in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements.

Conclusion

  1. This aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

Proposed outcome

  1. This dispute turns on whether the evidence establishes a basis for departing from the Wholesale provider's position that relocation of the infrastructure is a customer-funded service.
  2. For the reasons outlined above, I am not satisfied that the available evidence establishes that the installation was undertaken other than in accordance with the standards and requirements applicable at the time.
  3. In those circumstances, I find no basis upon which to require the Wholesale provider to undertake, or contribute to, the costs associated with relocating the infrastructure.
  4. Accordingly, I find no breach of clause 10.2.6 of the Code.
  5. The complaint is not upheld.

Response to proposed decision

  1. The parties were invited to provide submissions on this proposed decision. The Wholesale provider made no submissions. 
  2. The Customer queries whether there is evidence demonstrating that the installation was undertaken lawfully. I have considered that submission.
  3. As reflected in the proposed decision, my findings do not rest on evidence establishing that the installation was undertaken in a particular manner. Rather, they are based on an assessment of the evidence available to determine whether it establishes that the installation failed to comply with the standards and requirements applicable at the time it was completed.
  4. In reaching that conclusion, I have considered the Customer's concerns regarding the absence of historical installation records, agreement to the installation route and methodology, together with the Wholesale provider's explanation of the installation methodology relied upon and the legislative and operational framework applicable at the time. 
  5. For the reasons set out in the proposed decision, I am not persuaded that the available evidence established that the installation occurred without the necessary authority or otherwise fell outside of the applicable framework.

Final outcome

  1. The Customer's further submission does not provide any additional evidence that alters the proposed findings. 
  2. Accordingly, the proposed decision remains unchanged and the complaint is not upheld.

Future actions

  1. It is important to note that there is no available appeal process to TDR’s final determination. Other options, such as the Disputes Tribunal, or the District Courts are available to any party dissatisfied with the outcome of TDR’s decision.  
  2. If the Complainant does not accept this final determination, they may pursue the matter in another forum that has legal jurisdiction to hear the matter.  If the Complainant agrees with this final determination the determination shall be binding on the parties.
  3. Final determinations are confidential as between the Wholesale provider and the Complainant.  All files are closed on release of this final determination.